Our modern societies still need feminism

It is undeniable that the great feminist movements of the 20th century have come and gone and have left in their wake an impressive shift towards gender equality. But has it been enough? Are we really there yet or does the 21st century need to see more feminist movements in order to see gender equality become a tried and true facet of our societies.

Let's hear some arguments for or against the current proposition "Our modern societies still need feminism". Let's also hear arguments for what would and what wouldn't be appropriate for a 21st century feminism.

Closing Statement from Matthieu Miossec

Whether we agree that our modern societies still need feminism or not, it is clear that the issue is still a hot topic. I greatly encourage everyone to read some of the exchanges of this debate, particularly those which include Andrea Grazzini Walstrom's insight.

Jul 4 2011:
I am a feminist by necessity. I would prefer to be a 'humanist' but the word has been co-opted. Each and every human being deserves the opportunity to become what ever the potential within them allows for without the interference of prejudices.
I was the first woman to take a skilled trade with General Motors of Canada. That was long before I had my children, my degrees or my current cemented convictions. I needed a job and I wanted to make more money rather than less. I was not on any society changing platform. At that time, I had people determine what I could and could not do based on my female body. I looked into the eyes of people who felt justified in mistreating me because I was infringing on their male based role of provider (or some other equally erroneous mindset.) They touched my body in violent and unwelcome ways because I was suddenly not deserving of the same respect as their own wives and daughters.

Now I have to endure a stage of history where my sons are judged ineligible because of the gender of their bodies. I can hardly wait for this era to be rebalanced and for all of us to wake up and insist on a better world.

I think anyone who is passionate about their cause is at risk for going too far, and creating negative connotations for their movement.

Sometimes this is purely tactical, a way to spark energies, attention and press. Similar to Matthieu's point. Gloria Allred would be versed in this. As these tactics mimic those litigators are trained to use.

Sometimes leaders get carried off in the contagion effect that takes hold as their efforts build. In this case the success of their methods seems proven to them and others, and thus prudent as a strategy to build from. They might be willing to take hits to their reputation for the larger cause.

And their sincere concern for women and heightened sensitivities from seeing so much destruction might be so vivid that in their despair they lash out in understandable anger.

I imagine this is where feminists such as Steinem, Betty Friedan and Susan Faludi have come off to some people as accusatory.

In my view the truth-test for any movement leader can be found at the intersection between drama and passion. When passion amounts to not much more than dramatics, is where we should question the depth of its impacts, both positive and negative.

And the acid test is: Do they exhibit good measures and balances of insight?

Faludi, for example, authored a pivotal feminist tome, "Backlash." Which she followed up with "Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Male." Which shows her effort to see the other side.

Do you feel we are in a situation in the USA where doing away with the "gender feminists" and adopting a 100% "equity feminist" approach would be beneficial?

My thought is that in cases of more extreme oppression still found in many countries, the "gender feminist" is going to bring greater attention to the cause, rally a more aggressive following to fight blatant injustice, and has a greater chance of getting laws enacted to protect women in cases of sexual harassment, domestic violence, divorce proceedings, ethical employment practices, etc. I feel that this type movement can create a sense of pride, hope, power in being a woman to many who have been robbed of their self worth.

I feel that the less extreme form is more effective once the equality gap has been sufficiently narrowed between the genders. Where is the point at which injustices toward women are the same as the ones men face? Can the more extreme feminism drive a wedge between men and women?

Would Malcolm X's 1950's and 1960's style make for a good leader for the African American population of today?--I say no. Would Dr. Martin Luther King's style still fit the current state of affairs?--I think yes. I view the topics of bigotry based on race and bigotry based on gender as similar in this respect.

Does Steinem support the evolution of the third-wave feminist in replacing the second-wave feminist or just in addition to?

I like the distinctions you suggest. They echo patterns of leaders like Malcolm X and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Though I'm not comfortable determining what methods would be best in cultures I'm less familiar with.

Each context has its nuances. While full-on activism might be a good strategy in some; it might not be for others. It can often depend on communications and commerce modes. The former is the medium for consciousness raising; the latter is the pressure point distributive justice can tap into to elicit change in hierarchal structures.

In other places, like Afghanistan, straight on activism often doesn't work. Places like it are so complicated and chaotic, strategies that work in other cultures may do more harm than help.

It is important to understand and speak current cultural vernacular, preferably as a stakeholder. I imagine Steinem would say (and I'd agree), second-wave feminism was necessary in the 50s-60s and third-wave methods are necessary now.

In fact, first-wave US feminism evolved in similar ways. Alice Paul built on the work of Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Stanton, but ratcheted it it up to get the Wilson administrations attention.

I'm not sure there isn't a need for more distributive justice in the U.S. Though I am uncertain if laws and legislation are effective in doing much more than offering a venue that endorses the concern. The fact is girls are still trafficked in the US, gender-based pay inequities remain, etc.

What I'm convinced there's a need for is clear stakeholder engagement. To see not only the ethical, but also the economic and evolutionarily importance of equity. Solutions emerge when men and women (like you and I) have conversations like these. And intentionally invite others to join in.

Here's the challenge: maximizing diverse energies. Some people are MLKish, others MalcolmX-ish. All are needed in contextually-sensititve proportions to navigate culturally shifting sands.

Jul 12 2011:
This is great I just cam from a femmenist conference on the Waves, but I would also like to add that the strongest importance of the thrid wave is seperating the idea of sex and gender identity. You forgot to mention people like Sylvia Rivera and trans women who was a bit link between second and third wave. The thing that is most exciting is that we are learning form the thrid wave that the movement has become more inclusive. This movement is erasing the idea of gender roles which can free women and men. As we see more boys wanting to play with dolls and where dresses and more families being accepting to it (Look up the childrens book "my princess boy") and not think of there child any more or less because of it.

When I was in my early teens, I used to think feminists were just a bunch of lesbians bitter with men. With the years, detached from the deeply religious and chauvinistic culture that, sadly, still remains in the most part of my country of origin, my views changed.

And I have to say I am uncomfortable with the concept of feminism some people have. I don't see how feminism aims to deconstruct masculinity, nor view it as a self-righteous ideology of hatred against men. It saddens me that this is how it is now viewed, because the extraordinary work of people such as, for instance, the late Betty Ford, or Lucy Stone, Mary Wollstonecraft, Harriet Tubman, amongst many others, is poisoned with these truly unjust labels. I have never been in a position where I have been discriminated for being a woman, or at least that I am aware of, and maybe I don't feel as strong about feminism but, so long as we have cases like the one Debra described; we need feminism.

I also don't understand what a real man or a real woman is. As far as I'm concerned, we are people who, yes, would benefit from practising more integrity, honesty and selflessness. However, I don't see why it should only be down to the man to emphasize those. And by no means I will surrender to anyone and do not wish anyone to surrender to me. I may have a completely different concept of what love is but surrendering is not a part of it.

Jul 10 2011:
I don't understand what a real Man or a real Woman is either to be honest. I see a lot of unfortunate gender profiling in this thread which I cannot agree to. Particularly, I can't understand why a man can't be effeminate. I was fairly effeminate and extremely sensitive as a teenager. Am I less of a man for it? Must a human of the male sex really follow societal pressures to be a man? In my honest opinion, a man is man if he's got a dick. The rest is just societal expectation. Given that some of the societies we live in used to see Men as unworthy of being Men if they failed their military service, I couldn't care less what society expects.

Jul 10 2011:
A lot of trans-gender people of the world may disagree with that last statement and I am not sure I would blame them. I am not arguing with you. I think I know exactly what you mean and I agree with it.

I think the way to get past all of the unjust prejudice is to insist on tolerance of others. Bigotry is taught. It is not something we are born with. Why should we care how others think and act if it has no negative effect on anyone else?

Jul 19 2011:
Jason has raised an incredibly valuable point here. In a world where sexuality appears (according to science and not culture) to be on a continuum- the only appropriate response in my view is to adopt Scott's concept of being an advocate for 'peopleists'. (I was striving for a word when I realized that humanist had been co-opted.

There is nothing wrong in being sensitive and effeminate.
The problem is that if people lose their polarity is makes them poorer and less alive. A man and woman experience themselves as such in the relationship to one another. If you want a big spark, you need to have opposite poles. But most of all, it is the power of love, that needs to be there for the spark to appear, and then not to let it die out, but keep the fire going. People need to love and care for one another, to discover the goodness of the other and in order to learn about oneself. If two people build a loving relationship, where there will be enough care and sensitivity for the other, it is a gold mine. There one can find the treasures of who we are as men and women. There is HUGE potential there. Dig love and you will find that out.

You are very right, Helena, it is not only the men who should practice honesty, selflessness, and integrity. ALL people need it, indeed. Most and for all. Most and for all people should live in integrity. It is in fact the lack of it that makes all the conflicts between people and between genders, injustice. People are failing to give to the others the right appreciation, the right recognition, the right support. People are failing to see and acknowledge the reality of others and that is the main problem.

When I speak about surrender to men I mean surrendering to the needs of the men, supporting them, appreciating them, paying attention to them, being willing to give up on what you want, in order to fill the need of the other. There is a way a mother surrenders to the needs of her child. At work, one needs to surrender to the boss, in the sense of being willing to fulfill ones own responsibilities and being willing to do what one is asked to do. It doesn't mean that there is no place for consideration, discussion, creativity and ones own input. But basically surrender is the willingness to give up on ones own personal wants for the sake of the other, without putting up resistance. Without surrender nothing can work, either friendship, nor partnership.

Surrender is not only for women. It is for all of the people. Men should surrender to the needs of the women too. See the true needs of the women and take on themselves the responsibility for their happiness. The reason why I pointed out that women need surrender in the first place, is because I see that the heritage of feminism, apart of the good things it brought, made a huge and successful campaign against it. Now, giving up on ones own is considered incorrect. If you are a woman you have a lot of "support" in the culture telling you not to do that. And under the same influences men nowadays tend to surrender to egotistical whims of the girls, which is not good either.

I totally missed this reply.
While I think I understand where you're coming from when talking about surrendering, for me, it still has a negative connotation, however that's beside the point.

I still very strongly disagree with your generalizations. You made some very strong statements which you would need to back up with very strong evidence. I second Jason Kather's reply to your previous comment.

Let's stop the fallacies, the bigotry, the intolerance and continue to promote respect and tolerance.

Jul 7 2011:
No, we don't need more feminism. We need more masculinism.

Why are there no more feminists? Because men don't "discriminate" enough. The structures of discrimination have become much more subtle and invisible than, say, 30 years ago. A lot of the old forms of discrimination have been made "illegal", and so the persistent forms have gone "underground", so to speak.

If men became more masculine (instead of metrosexual), women would have a mechanism that makes our current, subtle forms of sexism and discrimination more visible. And this would allow them to formulate what exactly they're fighting for. We need masculine bastards of men.

The worst thing for the feminist movement is to have men who slavishly agree and struggle alongside the women; the metrosexual, effeminate intellectual who is in touch with his "female side" and who "understands" women.

In short, to get (a)head, with a new Modernity, in which women stand up against subtle discrimination, we need more masculinism.

We need more masculine men beating the crap (rhetorically speaking, of course) out of the cowardly bastards who hide behind faux facades while manipulating women, societies and all the children caught in the chaotic crossed-signals.

These discriminatory structures you describe have become so subtle and subversive that few men, women, girls or boys dare muster up the authentic strength and courage it takes to live up to their human capacities for insight and their abilities to do the right thing.

Even as I write this, I imagine I'm risking some of my own professional and personal relationships for saying so. Which in honesty, feels a bit over-edgy even to me.

And I know it's unfeminine of me to speak with such anger. But in spite of my tendencies towards idealism, and desires to be more delicate, I am utterly astonished at how increasingly fewer men and women are willing to hold up and shine lights as you do.

You have my gratitude for demonstrating real manly-manishness. And giving me a momentary glimmer of much-needed hope.

Jul 8 2011:
Laurens and Andrea, the points you make about subtlety poignantly address one of the reasons why we have such difficulty in overcoming the biases. Overt comments or actions are easy to deal with because they are so obvious and undeniable. Subtle comments or actions are less easily defined or explained to someone else. Often, only the person affected truly understands the full effect. Usually an accumulation of these subtle biases occur before the affected person fully understands the undermining that is really taking place. It is unfortunate that this is still very commonplace.
Andrea, I would say you are assertive, not unfeminine.

Aug 3 2011:
This topic seems to be a hot issue with many people, but there is one thing I would like to bring up (and I fear the response ha-ha).

I've been reading the comments, and there have been some talking about women being objectified and the need to say no to how some of our culture displays us. Yes, vast improvements have happened with equality and such, but aesthetically, women are still being degraded. Even in subtle ways, like intense airbrushing used in magazines that just crush self esteem and drive women to become something that only a computer can create. Then there is the in your face degredation, seen most notably in some rap video/lyrics/etc. Half naked women walking around, dancing sexually, standing by men who sing about how they are going to take them home or just bang them where ever they please.

Now I understand young adult/full grown women may be able to tell right from wrong and live their own productive lives, but my concern goes towards the younger generations who are oversaturated with an image of women being physically perfect, sexually pleasing, and being hardcore partyers. What we need are role models (successful business women, doctors, lawyers, etc) to be put in the spotlight as well as body images that allow younger childeren to see that all body types are acceptable and that what is seen in the magazines, music videos, movies isn't always true. (This is why I love the Dove commercials about beauty and body images).

Jul 4 2011:
Considering the fact that women have been oppressed in this world for ages, we do need feminism in this century. But once we think we have attained gender equality, we must ditch feminism. As Mr. Walker pointed out the need for feminism is more in some countries than others.

Jul 4 2011:
The idea that "women have been oppressed for ages" is a popular myth in the realm of sexism that is not supported by history at all.

First, social class has always been much more important than the location of one's genitals. So one could just as well say that "men have been oppressed for ages by women". That would be absolutely correct and yet highly misleading, because there were also women oppressing women, and men oppressing men. It would probably be much more accurate to say that "Short people have been oppressed by tall people for ages", assuming a connection between to nutrition, wealth and power. If we only possessed that population data over the millenia, I wouldn't be suprised to find a much higher correlation between power and body height than between power and sex.

Second, there were times when women enjoyed even more freedom and acceptance than they do nowadays. Today, most people fanatically defend the belief that females are significantly inferior in physical regards. You wouldn't expect this belief to have been much weaker in the far past, let alone the so-called "Dark Ages", right? And yet, this was the case. For economic and social reasons, female family members of a socially superior had more rights and duties than men of lower classes. Nowadays however I have a hard time to find a person who can merely *imagine* a woman working as a blacksmith. And even in the rare cases where I succeed I am told that such women must be fugly butches.

Human progress isn't linear, and the motivations for irrational discriminations have never faded. Therefore, one has to pay attention that one doesn't make the mistake of generalizing and overstating the role of sex when criticizing the mistake of generalizing and overstating the role of sex...

Jul 4 2011:
I do agree with you saying " men have been oppressed by men, women have been oppressed by women and all such combinations with different abilities" but your statement " "women have been oppressed for ages" is a popular myth"" is making the entire issue trivial. I do not know where you come from, coming from a third world country, I have seen how women have been treated over the years. I can say that in my own family while my father supported me till I got my Ph.D., when my sister was asked to get married when she was only 20. We both were toppers when we graduated from senior high school, yet my sister is looking after her family now and I enjoy all the privileges America provides. I am not saying my sister is not happy, but I do feel that she has the potential to contribute to the society other than just being a good wife and mother.

Yes, you are right in saying there are times women enjoyed freedom, but what percentage of women have? I still believe that it is not an overstatement to say " Women have been oppressed for ages".

Jul 4 2011:
"Yes, you are right in saying there are times women enjoyed freedom, but what percentage of women have?"

What percentage of men have? How many males in the history of mankind were kings, and how many of them were peasants? I agree, it is correct to state that women have been oppressed for ages. Just as it is correct to state that men have been oppressed for ages. Furthermore, it is even correct to state that men have been oppressed *by women* for ages. However, it is completely wrong to derive the equation "Womanity = Wrongdoers, Manity = Victims" from that. And the same applies to reversed roles. Which is always intended with that statement, according to my experience. Or do you know of any other reason for such an unjustified generalization? No doubt there are strong incentives to to create such broad categories, crossing the borders of space and class and time, often transcending oneself into them. That is a common technique found in religious and political ideologies. But it isn't supported by the facts.

I don't deny that there is actual sexism in the present as well as in history; I even acknowledge that it also occurs against males. But that doesn't mean that sex is the defining characteristic in general. Social class is much more important than the sex, back then as well as now, and therefore women have been oppressed as well as oppressors. Provided we want to stick to this dichotomy at all. In my opinion, a more accurate way to view society is to recognize that (almost) everyone has people above and below oneself. And that one doesn't try everything to abolish the differences to those beneath one...does that make one an oppressor? Then we are all oppressors, I believe.

I think you need to support your claims that men are oppressed by women. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. But you need to hold yourself to the standard you are holding Kiran to. What's your evidence?

I'd further say there is quite a difference between economic and gender bias. Ie: a peasant oppressed by a king vs. a woman oppressed by her culture, religion, employer, etc.

I'm unaware of a quantifiably representative time when woman prevailed as the gender-oppressing hierarchy. Notably, those societies like First Nation (aka Native American) cultures where feminine-strengths have been perceived as a good thing, have comparatively little gender-based bias one way or the other.

But civilization has throughout the centuries been ruled by economic models. ie: Money has long equalled power. It is the rare society, if any, in history where women have ruled through economic power in any meaningfully sustained and socially prevailing way.

Indeed, in the US, women PhDs and MDs with the same academic credentials, equal or better outcomes and sometimes more hours on the job, are paid less than their male colleagues. There is good evidence these pay inequities correlate to other sectors. Pay disparities have scarcely budged in decades.

All this said, I believe the most critical way to change sexism is to understand how both sides both lose and win when evolutionary adjustments are attempted.

Feminism has critically improved culture. Still, it has contributed to unintended impacts which due to complicated translations of its ideals have undermined some parts of it, too.

Jul 5 2011:
You still stick to the fallacy of viewing the sex as the relevant characteristic from the beginning. That's nothing less than starting with a conclusion. It's impossible to refute that. Any argument, any observation that is based on that unjustified premise will only confirm it or not confirm it. But it will never be able to falsify it. In terms of epistemology, it's the dogmatic answer to the Münchhausen Trilemma. Or the Creationist Method, as I call it after this caricature: http://blog.cagle.com/2011/02/creationist-method/ .

For comparison, you could just as well argue that Christian societies have always been more peaceful than any other, that they have never been violent or oppressing, that all their characteristics we consider to be good nowadays prove the glory of Christianity beyond doubt. Those actions which are morally wrong by today's standards? Economic, cultural, political reasons, everything but religious. And if the responsibility is undeniable, then the "interpretations" of the ideals have sometimes been unfortunate, with the "real" Christianity nonetheless being holy and just all the time.

No amount of historical evidence - of which there is plenty - can refute this claimed superiority and benevolence of Christianity, because that position is already constructed unfalsifiably. One could also say fallaciously. So those who reject fallacies consider it refuted because of that already, and those who don't reject fallacies won't ever see the necessity to consider it refuted. No constructive discussion possible, sorry.

Jul 4 2011:
Answering your question "How many males in the history of mankind were kings" , I do not think I am wrong in saying more than 95% of rulers are men. I agree to your point that social class is more important/equally important than/as sex. But even in the lower social class, lower class women have been oppressed by lower class men. You can not compare higher class women with lower class men (I see you are scientist, it is not appropriate control).

I totally agree with you in saying " every one has people above and below oneself ". But as you see if the median of one sect is much lower than the other the other, then one must think about it and try to do some thing about it. In this case, we are talking about feminism, but same holds true for races that have been oppressed or untouchable casts in case of India, you can find many such examples.

Of course I can. In fact, I even must. It would be willful ignorance to make only those comparison that confirm the preconceived conclusion which reads that women were oppressed and not oppressors. And before we start discussing how they were "less privileged oppressors", I want to ask three questions:

1.) Is it important whether long-deceased members of a group have been oppressors at all?
2.) Is it important to the oppressed whether their current oppressor is less privileged than other oppressors?
3.) Is the unjustified categorization of people into "good" and "evil" groups based on a superficial characteristic really necessary, let alone a contribution to the fight against the unjustified categorization of people into "good" and "evil" groups based on a superficial characteristic?

My answer to all of these questions is "No". And any attempt to merely change the group that is in charge of dominating the other ones is no real change at all. Take religious freedom, for example. In Germany, the debate is only about which religions should enjoy privileges. Should Christianity be dominant, with Islam playing second fiddle, or should it be the other way round? Conservatives demand the former, socialists go for the latter. And then they fight over which group fits the role of the evil wrongdoer and which group may pose as the innocent victim.

Which is absurd in several ways. Apart from the fact that such a generalization stands in clear opposition to historical facts where Christians and Muslims were both victims and wrongdoers, this simplification doesn't serve any other purpose than creating the illusion of a homogenous ingroup and outgroup.

The only way to overcome that eternal battle for dominance consists in abolishing these assumed roles completely, instead of merely assigning them to different groups from time to time.

Jul 4 2011:
"The only way to overcome that system consists in abolishing these roles completely, instead of distributing them." Yes, but how do we do that? I think for that you need to bring every one to a common stage and ask them to be free. In that regard world must try to uplift the oppressed in what ever way it can and whoever the oppressed might be.

Jul 5 2011:
Just for your information, I edited the posting a bit while you replied. That character limit is sometimes a challenge to me, forcing me to rethink where I want to put my emphasis on. Which isn't a bad thing, in fact.

The main step towards abolishing oppression consists in the decision to let go of oversimplified, generalized categorizations of people. When one is able to refrain completely from viewing sexes/races/nationalities... as "good" or "evil", "victims" or "wrongdoers", "friends" or "foes", one has taken that step.

In turn, a refusal means that moral orientation and simplification are more important to oneself than giving up discrimination. And assigning a single role to the entirety of people with a certain sex, race or nationality is such a refusal.

Jul 5 2011:
There is no blame game going on here. It is not a problem if it were a problem, but it is a problem even now. So we need some solutions. It is not about what men had done to oppress women, it is all about what men and women can do to uplift women from the state they are living even now.

Jul 5 2011:
That's exactly the problem: Focussing on uplifting only women. My suggestion is to abolish sexism entirely, but that requires to no longer practicing it. That means the question "Which sex should be targeted now with positive or negative measures?" will *never* abolish sexism, because that *is* sexism. Ask yourself, why are you insisting on keeping up sex discrimination instead of viewing people as humans, regardless of their sex?

Jul 5 2011:
"Focussing on uplifting only women." I did not mean that. It is about uplifting of down trodden. Any sects could come under this category. Since we are talking about women in this debate, I am mentioning about uplifting women. I would very much want to live in a world where we see others as people but not men/women/gay/straight/lower-class/upperclass/white/black/brown/yellow. But to get there we should get rid of all inequalities.

Jul 5 2011:
That will never happen as long as one insists on discrimination.

There is a Monty Python Sketch illustrating the point I'm trying to make: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c . It dismisses it as absurd that the right to have babies should apply to people in general instead of only women (and it does so in a hilarious way). But actually, this *is* an act of sexism and oppression. There is no need to bind this right only to women, even if there were a 100% correlation between pregnancy and sex. Which does not exist, by the way, thanks to transsexuals. But even if there were no transsexuals, there would be no rational reason to do so. People always ask "Why shouldn't we discriminate if these sexual differences do exist?". Well, apart from the fact that these differences pretty much *never* exist consistently on the individual level - I won't even start with the many physical and psychological levels of sex/gender - there is no logical reason to take *another* characteristic than the relevant one to make the distinction. It simply doesn't make sense, unless one is motivated by sexism. The same applies to racism, nationalism and every other similar ideology, of course. Not even a 100% correlation changes that, so all discussions in that direction can be cut short.

There are only two ways: Either we oppose sexism, or we don't. And if we oppose it, it means that we must *not* ask the question which sex should be targeted now with measures. And whether these measures are positive or negative doesn't make the question any more or less sexist. Currently, no society on this planet is willing to abandon sexism, and this is because their people are not willing to abandon sexism.

Only when it seems wrong to one to write wrongfully generalized sentences like "That sex/race/nationality... has been the victim for ages", one can even think (literally!) of overcoming discrimination. Not one second earlier.

Jul 6 2011:
I would argue that we need to hang on to feminism until we actually ACHIEVE gender equality! Yes, you could say that's just semantics, but many people already *think* that we've reached full equality. Susan J. Douglas does a great job of exploring this in Enlightened Sexism, a book I'd highly recommend!

Jul 16 2011:
As long as there exists a culture that is supposedly advanced in the field of gender equality and yet I can turn on MTV and see women being portrayed as objects we are blind to the fact that the movements of the past 100 years have changed very little and the current public view of women is still so much less than what they could be.

Jul 16 2011:
Sex sells...there is no arguing that fact. Explain to me how marketing toward women does not include the portrayal of men as sex objects? Why is it that so many men on MTV run around with their shirts off? Why is it that romance novels often have good looking man on the cover? Why is it that the leading men of Hollywood are so predominantly attractive? Why is it that Brad Pitt gets different roles than Danny Devito?

Current public view of people in general is less than what it could be. Both genders are judged on physical appearance, ethnicity, religious beliefs, family names, etc. How have the women's movements of the last 100 years not changed women's right to vote, issues of domestic violence, sexual harassment, ethical employment practices, divorce proceedings and many more areas in a great way from 100 years ago?

Are women seen as sex objects by men?---Sure. Are men seen as sex objects by women?---sure. Does each gender have a portion that views the same gender as a sex object?--sure. That is in our DNA. To say that women's rights have not substantially improved in Western societies in the past 100 years is to say that basically no women in the workforce, women not having the right to vote, women being viewed as much less than man's equal is basically equivalent to the opposite. I strongly disagree with that.

I agree with Dan's comment: "The public view of woman is still so much less than what it could be."

Regards your comment about portions of each gender viewing the other as sex objects. The Q is what are the relative proportions?

I imagine most people can agree the proportion of men who view women as little more than sexual objects is significantly greater than the proportion of women who view men as little more than sexual objects. Proportionate media images echo this. Even serious business journals exhibit lots of T&A. While women's magazines might have a few nude male chests mixed equally with other images of family, children, fashion, etc. you don't see too many bulges, er, peeking out of their pages.

Good news is there are few images that imply violent sexual acts by women against men. Bad news is evidence that neanderthal-ism remains among our species. And endless images imply violent sexual acts by men against women remains in vogue.

And, unless you can support with evidence that domestic violence against woman has been meaningfully reduced in the last 100 years, I beg to differ. Every evidence in media and research suggest violence against women remains at significant levels, across numerous sectors of society. Recent research shows that one of three woman US women reports having been sexually assaulted. From what I understand, the incidence is likely higher in US military.

There is exceedingly little evidence that bare chested male images correlate to anything near these realities. Which, as Dan suggests, have remained statistically stable for years, if not centuries.

I agree, as you say, sex sells. Revenues from erectile dysfunction medications have skyrocketed in less than a decade. Notably, ads for these typically run next to sexualized images of women. Meanwhile, you don't see ads for vibrators in mainstream media.

Which leads to this Q. Which gender is buying more sex and sexually objectified images?

As far as viewing opposite genders as sex objects, I feel that as long as there is an innate physical attraction there, this will happen. The question is: "where is the line between celebrating the human form and violating basic human rights?". Men are often said to be more visual than women, but I know plenty of straight women who enjoy looking at other beautiful women as well as attractive men. I completely agree without actual hard facts to back it up that men are more likely to view women as "little more than a sexual objects". I think part of this is due to evolution and part is due to social influences.

The objectification of women as a feminist topic is much different than many of the equality of gender issues due to the subjective nature of the discussion. I feel that discussion would be better in its own dedicated conversation. Using MTV's portrayal of women as proof that the feminist movements have been completely unsuccessful left a bad taste in my mouth and I felt the need to provide a partial counter argument. I consider myself very pro-feminism, although I often try to look at topics from multiple angles including strange strange ones at times which makes me not quite mainstream in all of my "feminist" views.

Domestic violence is a fairly new term because for so long, things like a man's rights over his wife in marriage, the "sanctity" of privacy of a person's home, No such idea of a man being able to rape his wife, the feeling of futility to change something that had always been, religion and other such ideas got in the way of addressing behavior between a man and his wife and kids. How much in-home abuse was actually reported 100 years ago?---Even 50 years ago? How was that report received by the law, community, family if someone was brave enough to speak out? Without hard evidence to back me up, I feel comfortable enough to say that the environment of 50-100 years ago was much more accommodating of domestic abuse.

Jul 18 2011:
Numerous surveys show that around 22% of women in America are suffering from Domestic violence. A recent survey conducted in China by a private Chinese group showed 35-65% (urban vs. rural areas) of Chinese women were victims of domestic violence. There are no laws in China to protect women in cases of domestic violence. A large portion of the people surveyed said that it was not anyone's business what happened behind the closed doors of a man's home in China.---Sound familiar?

From a website: http://www.dvrc-or.org/domestic/violence/resources/C61/
"Nearly 2.2 million people called a domestic violence crisis or hot line in 2004 to escape crisis situations, seek advice, or assist someone they thought might be victims.(National Network to End Domestic Violence)

Studies show that access to shelter services leads to a 60-70% reduction in incidence and severity of re-assault during the 3-12 months’ follow up period compared to women who did not access shelter. Shelter services led to greater reduction in severe re-assault than did seeking court or law enforcement protection, or moving to a new location.(Campbell, JC, PhD, RN, FAAN. Anna D. Wolf, Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing, Protective Action and Re-assault: Findings from the RAVE study.)"

Where would these people have gotten help 50 years ago? This small piece in itself has to be convincing evidence that measures to fight domestic violence are making a difference compared to not having any systems in place. When women don't have the right to vote and are subjected to many other basic injustices, I feel it goes without saying that they are viewed by society as property to treated by their husband as he wishes to a greater extent than when they are viewed as equals in the eye of the law.

Jul 18 2011:
The Violence Against Women Act of 1994, The Family Violence Prevention and Services Act before that, the creation of the Office on Violence Against Women in the U.S. Dept. of Justice, and numerous single laws enacted to protect women (and men) in matters of domestic violence are having a positive effect on the overall problem.

I have serious doubts as the the validity of the 1 in 3 women being sexually assaulted. The more accurate number is frightening enough on its own and there is no need to inflate it. Many respected surveys put the number of women who have been sexually or physically assaulted at 1 in 6. Gloria Steinem once wrote in one of her books that 150,000 American women a year died of Anorexia. I think the true number was around 60. I get frustrated when I see embellished statistics put out by large groups of so-called leaders of movements because it takes away from the credibility of such a serious problem that needs to be addressed. Like I said, the real numbers are scary enough to get the point across.

Jul 20 2011:
Mens testosterone is released approximently every 15 min, opposed to females estrogen which is released once a day. since they are the sex hormones, you tell me who is buying more sex and sexually objectified images? silly question for you to ask and beside the point. but everything else you've said I have enjoyed, you make some great points.

It is entirely reasonable of you to be frustrated with embellished statistics.

But, with due respect, it is equally frustrating to see loose arguments like "men are sex objects because photos of their bare chests are in media" that imply clearly flawed correlations. The implication is that objectification of women is "equal" to that of men. Which, as you later note, is inaccurate.

We could quibble about statistical nuances, but again: both research and reality is sexual images of men do not induce cultural oppression of men. While nearly all of many statistics point to hyper-sexualized images of women undermining them in various life realms. (I happen to think they undermine men, too. But that's another matter). This is why the images remain a gender-equity concern. As they should.

I'd further argue there seems to be a converse relationship between gender gains feminism achieved due to distributive justice legislation you cite, and gender losses due to increasingly ubiquitous cultural images of women as either "Man-eaters" or "Tootsies."

As for "men are visual" arguments I think this is tired. As you note, women are visual, too. Whether men are more visual than women isn't salient here. What is is that the claim is complicit with the "boys will boys" perspective and, too often, this leads to fulfillment of damaging prophecies.

This creates not only a troublingly limited perception of what it means to be a man, but also abets continued problems for women. Including through anorexia: female abuse of body against self, informed by cultural ideals about what women should look like to be sexy. Namely: thin.

While laws can and have helped US gender equity, emergent counter-energies that seek to protect male interests in courts and government undermine many. Why culture change is ever more critical.

There are ways we can communicate sensuality to enhance fe/male relationships and abet positive expressions of gender.

Jul 18 2011:
One of the most enlightening, confusing yet astounding books that I have read in a long time is called "Sex at Dawn' (I forget the authors at the moment). It is an utterly fascinating look at human sexuality from the perspective of collected research from the work with chimps and bonobos to the cultural anthropological studies to the medical evaluation of women as 'hysterics' a 'disease' certified by doctors from the time of the ancients. While utterly denying that women needed or wanted sexual pleasure the doctors found a role in aleviating this 'suffering'. The cure for female 'hysterics' was actually manual stimulation by doctors(!) until it was declassified as a disease well into the 1920's in America and Great Britian. (An amazing factoid is that the 5th certified electrical device in the USA after sewing machines, toasters, etc. were doctor designed vibrators for releiving 'HYSTERIA"!)My point is that a whole lot of our confusion as societies about women and feminism is based on erroneous and yet well accepted doctrines of what it means or should mean to be a woman. Time for better information, better discussion and more courage in facing the realities and TED is making a good start.

Addition: The authors of the book are Ryan and Jetha. Andrew Weil (of wholistic health fame) endorses it on the back cover. When I say that the book is confusing it is because it flies in the face of most of what we have been taught about women and their sexuality over the years. It documents all of the research extensively. It was a very interesting- if personally challenging book.

One of the co-authors of "Sex at Dawn" is Christopher Ryan, Ph. D. I linked one of his articles in a different discussion a couple weeks ago and it was deleted by the site administrator. I never received an e-mail as to why it was deleted. It is relevant to this discussion as well, so I will link it again. The article concerns sexual repression.

I ask the question again...Where is the line at which celebrating the human form turns into violating basic human rights?

The article posted begs the question...Is it healthy to not allow the "objectification" of humans as sexual objects to a certain degree?

Andrea,

You added the words "as little more" to the objectification of females as sexual objects. I agree that is an ignorant, dangerous, bigoted thing to do. I don't see why showing women in bikinis on MTV takes away from any other aspect of their character. In the same respect, I don't see how showing a man with his shirt off takes away from his intelligence, moral quotient, ability to function as a productive member of society, etc

Too many times we make judgements based on the extremes or fringe elements of a group of individuals or an idea. Can we agree that a person can enjoy watching another person acting in a "stereotypically sexual" manner and still have respect for that person and their gender? By "stereotypically sexual" manner I am referring to anything that might be shown on MTV (since this is the original arena from which our discussion evolved).

I propose that Dan Willis' comment is more about a symptom of a greater problem than the problem itself. The root of the problem lies in intolerance, lack of understanding, prejudice, jumping to conclusions without enough evidence of facts which leads to a lack of respect. I say this is more of a human issue than a feminist issue. Extreme cases lead to feminist issues.

Jul 22 2011:
Jason, even your question shows something about our times. Why is it necessary to think that we objectify when we engage our sexual nature? Isn't that a symptom of the social malaise that we are talking about? When I feel attraction to someone they become more fully real, more fully present, more fully human to me not less.

I am also not sure that sexual repression is the forebearer of societies' death knell as the article you posted suggests. It is clearly not ideal and it does bring about maladaption in some people but millions lived and survived and contributed to society in Victorian times, in religious communities and with strict parents. Human beings adapt to many cruelties in this world but the main point should be to ask 'how can we do it better?' Objectification is hardly the answer. Education, proven science which enlightens us all on what human sexuality really is can be a compelling force for good.

Let's not get confused or try to confuse the issue at hand with semantics. I think I was clear in my statement with the use of quotation marks and the phrase "to a certain degree" so that you would know what I was getting at. If it is still not clear, I obviously failed in that attempt and will take a stab at a lengthy description of exactly what I was referring to.

Obviously the article used as an example is on the extreme side, yet it illustrates the point quite well. Taboos in societies are often based on ignorant assumptions.

Why is it that when I enjoy watching Rachel Maddow tear an ignorant politician a new one, I am respecting her intelligence? Why is it that when I enjoy watching women's beach volleyball in part because of the uniforms they wear, I am disrespecting women worldwide?

Jul 23 2011:
Hi Jason, I always enjoy engaging you in discussion and I usually enjoy reading your posts because they are mostly sincere and well reasoned. Thanks for that. In this case, I realize that I did not directly address your question.
It is my opinion that one of the major problems in the western world is the objectification of women. The Muslim Immams have it right in pointing to our salacious media and the issues of pornography as a symptom of how far we are from a healthy society.
I brought up the topic of 'Sex at Dawn' as an intellectual and research heavy book designed to implode some of the foundational myths. I think we agree thus far.
When I was the first woman to take a skilled trade with GM Canada- they tried to intimidate and 'keep me in my place' with the use of unwanted touching (haha- look what i got away with or 'oooops! was that your boob? I am so sorry? GRIN!' I was not just an object at that point I was a threat to their way of life. I just ignored the porn for almost 10 years.

Another tactic was to post violent pornography at eye level on machines that I had to work on for 8 hours. Stilleto heels digging into women's breasts, women with dog collars and leashes, women with teeth marks on their bodies. My supervisors were no help. When I went to HR my supervisors even told them that I was lying- until I walked over to the machine, tore the pictures down and placed them inside a newspaper and marched them down to HR. Guess what happened then?
Even man in my department, the great guys, the family men, the ones who had been kind to me - was marched into the office and threatened with suspension when they knew full well who it was. Guess how my life there was after that? I got the most miserable jobs. Few would talk to me because I was the one who threatened their livelihood.

Objectification? How can anyone defend it or think it is harmless. Art has a positive contribution to make. The human form is beautiful. Love is too. Exploitation is NOT.

Jul 23 2011:
Hi Debra. I enjoy your posts, your intellect, your kindness. I thank you for the compliment. I will choose to not take it as a backhanded compliment, even though the way you describe how you "usually" enjoy reading my posts because they are "mostly" sincere and well reasoned does tempt me to take a different outlook on your overall meaning.

I would never attempt to justify the behaviors you were subjected to concerning harassment and mistreatment by men in your former workplace. Of course I would never defend such actions. I can only say that it sounds like a terrible thing to have to go through and i am the type to not stand idly by when such behavior is demonstrated.

Having said that... I feel this is a different end of the spectrum from what I am trying to argue for. I am making the case for the "ART" aspect in relation to the viewing of the human form. The line between art and pornography is a fine one, but the extremes are easily recognized, In my opinion. The certain degree of "objectification" I keep referring to is one much closer to how an artist would view his subject than how an uneducated, bigoted man might view pornography. There are feminists out there who are 100% against Botticelli and his portrayal of women.

To take this in a slightly different direction... I have an extremely intelligent friend who tried selling me on the idea that Shakespeare was a sexist and no woman should be morally comfortable with any of his plays. Her argument had something to do with the role of females in literature as not multi-faceted enough and only used to progress the roles of the male leads.

...I say this is just taking it too far. This reminds me of the needless posturing done by politicians instead of actually working together to address problems in a constructive way. At some point, people have to meet in the middle of the extremes.

Jul 25 2011:
Hi Jason, Thanks for accepting my sincere compliment and my reservations without offense. Given the topic at hand and what some of us have actually experienced in this lifetime in our own person, I really think that you are arguing the minutia of the issue rather than the overall topic. I for one love many of the artistic representation of woman's bodies for I think we are beautiful. I am deeply impressed by Shakespeare's occassional brilliance in illuminating the role of woman and of other minorities in his plays but I am not always willing to accept the way the women of his time are formally represented. I hold that in most cased -just like TED conversations that you do not enjoy- just skip it and move on!

We still need feminisim because we still have very many women being badly treated in our own societies. The most dangerous people in a woman's life are statistically still the men who are supposed to love them- the fathers and brothers who kill them in honour killings, the husbands who see them as property and kill them in domestic violence. Let's not fool ourselves- this is the tip of the iceberg. If men are killing the women they love, they cannot be treating them with equality in the workplace.

My point is that we are discussing a serious issue which effects millions of lives and not just art here Jason. If some ladies' opinions are ticking you off, smile and move on to others with whom you are sympatico and do not diminish the seriousness of the issues that many of us are living with.

"Given the topic at hand and what some of us have actually experienced in this lifetime in our own person, I really think that you are arguing the minutia of the issue rather than the overall topic"

The topic at hand is "Let's hear some arguments for or against the current proposition "Our modern societies still need feminism". Let's also hear arguments for what would and what wouldn't be appropriate for a 21st century feminism."---Directly quoted from Matthieu's post.

I have stated many times that I am for feminism. I believe there is much work to do before women are treated equally to men in Western societies. Have you read my posts? Where I have tried to take the debate is into the area of what would and wouldn't be appropriate for a 21st century feminism (what is the sense in a debate where everyone agrees?). I have argued against what I have termed "extremists" in the current state of American feminism.. I have argued for what have been called 3rd wave feminists or equity feminists. I have provided examples through personal opinions and facts to back up my stance in the debate. I have not been ticked off by anyone else's opinion...Although, I admittedly got frustrated when shady statistics were brought into question.

This is going to sound much more disrespectful than it is intended, but this is a debate on TED, not a support group. IIf I have offended anyone by my questions, opinions, statements made, I apologize. That does not mean that I take any of my questions, opinions, statements back. Please believe me when I say that I did not intentionally try to inflame any topics. I only want to have an educated discussion about what would and wouldn't be appropriate for a 21st century feminism. If you have any doubts about this statement, please read through my posts again before you make up your mind. I do not know the situation in Canada. Is that leading to some of the miscommunication? Does your last comment to me deserve a thumbs up?

Jul 26 2011:
Hi Jason, I repeat that I enjoy my dialogues with you and it is not now nor has it ever been my intension to offend you. I am not using semantics, I am not seeking a 'support group' and I am choosing not to be offended by that suggestion. Canada is at the same level or better than the USA in our legislation. The realities of life for women especially those of us who have been around awhile are not yet optimal. I think that sharing my life experience is a resource that I offer to everyone reading so that we can understand what people in the trenches have really experienced. While I do know why I am passionate about defending my stance on this issue, I am not sure why you are passionate about your point of view. I invite you to share what you feel feminism in this era and in your own country is costing or taking from you. Shalom!

Absolutely I can agree we can, and should, appreciate another person expressing their sensuality while also respecting, and better yet, demonstrating our recognition that there is a whole complex person beyond their visual affect, whatever it is.

I fear for our abilities to fully be ourselves, love and develop in healthy ways if we can't.

A colleague of mine exemplifies this. He's taken delightful action to help young men develop this capacity.

While teaching college in California he encouraged students to pick a topic for research they could be passionate about. When some of the young men jokingly replied they were only passionate about bikinis, he responded in all seriousness that they should go for it--research bikinis. Once they picked their jaws off the ground, he helped them navigate their topic.

Their first stop was the beach to do "hands-off" observations on bikinis. They took notes on which they liked, patterns, social exchanges, including everything from appreciative looks to leering cat-calls. and trends like what time of the day bikini-wearers tended to come to beach, etc., how these correlated to when, say, muscle-men and young families tended to show up.

Next came quantitative research on bikinis more economic-focused evolutions. Where they were invented, how sizes and shapes changed, how they are manufactured, of what materials, how they were marketed production and distribution impacts on economies and ocean environments, etc.

Then came social science research looking at sexuality trends, objectification of women, parallels to economic factors, positive and negatives of free sex transformations happening while second wave feminist civil movements gained steam, relationships of media interpretations to bra-burnings, graphic sex and violence.

Finally qualitative reflection had young men co-reflecting with young women, expressing new understandings of gender and sex complexities.

I will not pretend to be an expert here, but in my experience, one of the best ways to defeat prejudice and ignorance is to be exposed to a diversity of people often and from a young age. When our co-ed school systems are graduating boys and girls who are still uncomfortable even talking to the opposite gender, I feel that school system has failed. I think boys should be sat next girls and paired with girls for in-class projects from the time they start going to school, I think it is very important to make it mandatory for girls to take some "male" classes like welding or woodworking, etc and for boys to take some "female" classes like sewing, parenting, etc. If the goal of school is to prepare youth to be productive, high functioning members of society, I feel that teaching interpersonal relationships is more important than Algebra in most cases.

It is often said that part of the reason we put so many people in jail is that the large groups of unionized employees who depend on having a huge prison population to maintain a job have a bigger influence than most people realize on the system. I say we should be using tax dollars to train and employ more guidance counselors, psychologists, and special needs teachers so that we don't need as many prison guards, but people can still find employment.

Parenting, to me, is more important than schooling overall, but I feel that the two should be more closely intertwined. Parents should be getting more regular reports on their children and in a bigger variety of subjects than reading, writing, and math---maybe add social skills, tolerance and respect for others, and self-confidence...self-image...self-worth to the regular reports?

Jul 25 2011:
Jason, as far as marketing to women where men are sexually objectified, I really believe that this trend was manufactured by men. With an MBA in marketing, I bet if I had the time I could document when it arose and when it took hold and it had a lot to do with the rise in pornography and with the rise in gay rights.One societal trend that really, really worries me is that many women have decided to 'identify with their abusers' and they believe that the only way forward is to emulate the 'successful' (read dominant or dominating) behaviours of men. Many women think that they have to act like the boys to be accepted in the boys' club. I absolutely reject that notion. I want success based on my own authentice qualities which does not require me to leave my 'femaleness' at the door. Women have great additions to make and it is in surrendering and rejectiing all that is truly powerfully feminine that we as a world are losing all perspective.

Jul 20 2011:
Just to throw into the pot: Some Native American tribes have spoken of five, not two, genders.

A few years ago, Rodin's nude of Balzac got banned from display at Brigham Young University. No problem with the female nudes, but Balzac stayed in the closet as if he were a priapus.

I despise the "men are more visual" argument. Men are not more visual. They have been allowed to look, and they have dictated what's to be on display because they have dominated women out of sheer brute force. Biologically, they tend to be physically bigger and stronger than women and therefore likelier candidates for perpetrating rapes, beatings, and other violations and usurpations of power. For millennia, that physical inequality translated into social inequality. Because over the last century or so, the use of brute force in any capacity has become less legal, women have more recourse than they used to, at least outside of a war zone, and men are freed up from much of that pressure to "prove" themselves.

Gender roles are far less polarized than in the past. But two things work against a complete blurring: 1) societal "norms" linger so far back in the brain that it is difficult NOT to attribute a tendency to the genes or the y chromosome; 2) some tendencies MAY be biological: men have more of a hormone that tends to trigger aggression than women do, and less of one that tends to amplify emotions. How does one contextualize testosterone and estrogen for the future? Where do they fit in our ongoing struggle to evolve/progress?

Gleaned from Herstory timeline: http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/herstory/herstory.html
1882 Maryland passes law making wife-beating a crime, punishable by 40 lashes, or a year in jail.
1890 North Carolina Supreme Court prohibits a husband from committing even a slight assault upon his wife.
1895 The Married Women's Property Act (in England) makes conviction for assault grounds for divorce.
The last "witch" in Germany was burned in 1775.

Would you happen to play basketball? I do. It's a mid-life energies outlet and exercise opportunity I've developed a habit for.

Anyway, I ask, because if you did, I'd like to recruit you to my "team."

Based on many years of playing sports with men, going back to my teens years as an unsuspecting beneficiary of Title IX of the US Civil Rights Act of 1964, my experience is that though men are often physically stronger than I am, I (and other women) can compete in stereotyped-as-masculine realms with them.

Of course, I am not alone.

One of my favorite examples of this is a young adolescent girl who plays with much larger men and boys at my YMCA, including her Dad and brother. She runs circles around them!

What is so exciting to observe are these four things:
1. The guys know better than to underestimate her, having learned the "hard way" via losing to her.
2. They have enough ego-strength to see her as an equally capable player.
3. They treat her as they would any male super-star. With respect and admiration.
4. She is having an absolute blast and radiates confidence.

So, anyway, wouldn't it be fun to put together a "both-genders" team that could build on each players strengths to kick a little butt?

And dribble away a few -- but, good gosh, NOT all! -- of these both-gendered sexual frustrations we are weaving around here on this butt-spreading online forum about gender equity?

I appreciate First Nation/Native American gender expansiveness and linguistic sensitivities you allude to. I've heard this, as well.

Many use a concept known as "two-spirit," to refer to a person exhibits both-gender identities. A both-gendered person might partake in "male" activities like sweat lodges and "female" activities like caring for children, for example. Regardless their sex, they might have spirit or animal guides and/or totems that represent male-strength-type characteristics, like the independent, decisive eagle, and female-strength-type characteristics, like the earthy wild horse, etc.

Putting sexual preference aside, I think their understandings and traditions represent astute ways to understand any human. We all have a unique mix of feminine and masculine traits. Some expressed more visibly than others in those who embody more stereotypically sex-based behaviors. Some expressed more holistically in those who embody more intrinsically nuanced mixes of their DNA/chromosomal "assignments."

To react to your Q how to contextualize testosterone and estrogen to evolve, I think it is to focus less on these to categorize and separate and construe them for what they are, delimited characteristics that combine with many endless characteristics that produce the "sum" of any one individual. That is, to see the individual first and most primary as above any one characteristic they exhibit or express.

This requires many more inter-personal attempts to see two things: 1. how ones individuality is constructive to ones relationships, far and near. And, 2. how respecting and seeing the value of others' individuality is constructive to one's self interests.

Jul 5 2011:
We both; women – and men – still need feminism in 21 century for globe. Why we aren't all (men & women) calling ourselves feminists?. "How stupid do we appear to say, 'I believe in gender inequality?'"

Jul 23 2011:
There it is: "due to cultural norms..." There are remarkable exceptions to what I am about to write. However, by and large, this society raises boys to be, in essence, jerks--to compete instead of collaborate, to think another person's demise is funny, to objectify women, to play with horrifically violent and gruesome toys, to never cry or emote, to compartmentalize their feelings, to respond with thoughtless action instead of communication, to disassociate, to disengage in a crisis--the list goes on. To this day, one of the worst things you could call a boy is a girl. Still, men and boys have to negotiate an entire forest of BS that threatens to open them up to shame if they don't prove themselves "manly." So many these days suffer from anxiety disorders, depression, and substance abuse. In addition, 2010 was the year when young women in all big cities were officially making more money than young men. A greater number of men are dropping out of college. Up to 80% of the unemployed are men. Men make up the majority of our military, and the rate of suicidal tendencies in the military has sky-rocketed to 7000%. The incidence of testicular cancer in young men has risen sharply, as have male genital deformities and reproductive complications; meanwhile, the sperm count has plummeted. The birthrate of boys is declining, with fewer males being conceived and more being lost to miscarriages, and more, once out of the womb, showing signs of biological feminization. The prime suspect is environmental estrogens. Whatever the cause, if it is not targeted and checked, then there may be far fewer men to bash, or love. Considering all this, if men were another species, they'd be on the endangered list. Past oppression and gender struggles shrink in the face of this health crisis, which is nothing to celebrate. Feminism was useful. Now we need to redefine cultural norms across the board and for heaven's sake to help men succeed as well.

I'm with you re: the problem of cultural norms. But regards sex-based birthrates, I want to point out a trend that needs to be kept in mind. Because boys are more valued, Asian countries disproportionately abort girls fetuses. It is expected this will lead in China and India alone to a "surplus" of 60 million adult men in 2020. Fewer available women correlates to higher rates of violence, sex-trade and trafficking.

Factoring in the flat-world effect, particularly given these countries are economic forces in technology industries, one could conceive how misogyny and oppression could continue to be communicated via industry and internet realms in pervasive, hard to pinpoint and adjudicate or otherwise address.

A relevant example is the success of video game "Duke Nukem Forever." It features strippers, aliens raping women, and the players' avatar, "Duke Nukem" throwing hysterical women over his shoulder and slapping them in the face and butt while "saving them." The smattering of dissent by women's groups, has apparently been to no avail. It was released in June and is already number two in sales.

Regards your concerns. I, too am deeply troubled by things like the skyrocketing suicide rate in the military. My state has the highest of all. Notably these increases are seen not only in deployed soldiers, but also never-deployed military and, increasingly, women.

A solution I favor for redefining norms are "stakeholder" dialogues to engage each gender work together to see how uplifting the other is more important than winning the battle of the sexes. This takes tremendous and sustained focus.

And, funding. This latter part is trickiest. Few institutions like the US Military are willing to fund initiatives such as these. In part because they don't fit easily into -- go figure -- spreadsheet-able categories and measurement rubrics.

The ROI is big-picture which requires withholding reactive impulses in favor of long-term outcomes.

I have noticed that often (though not always) when there is a debate, people are usually arguing from two sides of the same coin because they are standing and looking at the problem from different places. Neither place or perspective is right or wrong. To the contrary, that piece is true given where that person is standing. I'm always sad when such a debate deteriorates into personal jabs and happy when, as in this case, the picture of the issue gets fleshed out from contributions.

In that spirit, I might add to the picture mention of some remarkable Chinese and Indian people working for change in their countries. I know The Hunger Project is quite involved in this area.

The beauty of targeting cultural norms is that it tends to blame no one but rather to deem our ignorance an inheritance that can be disowned. Even those in China and India who sanction or commit female infanticide or wife burning or foot binding are simply practicing a cultural norm in ignorance. Those who make or use Duke Nukem are practicing a cultural norm in ignorance. The military is steeped in cultural norms that cripple their ability to prevent the suicides of their members.

Cultural norms are unquestioned assumptions that use shame to stay in power. Our task is to question, question, question until that norm loses its power over people's minds. For example, when a group of Indian women came together and stepped forward about killing their baby girls, grieved together, and established an organization to end the practice, that was a mighty blow to that cultural norm.

Funny how the countries you cite--China and India--are among countries lowest on the Environmental Performance Index. I wonder to what extent they are ironically being exposed to environmental estrogens.

I really get much out of your insights, Andrea, and am grateful to TED for providing a place where minds can come together on these things.